Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 13

Show Cause Order
Yup, we're back to this one: Considering Jack has now replied to the Show Cause order, and a hearing could be held today (see [this page for his reply to the request to the show cause order] Surely the man himself qualifies for WP:RS SirFozzie 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've filed a WP:RfC on the article. If you're coming here from the RfC, it's also on archive 12
 * There was some discussion about a month ago about using gaming sites as sources for legal documents, and I don't think we really decided anything. It would be best, of course, if someone personally had access to the documents.  Even then, there's the question of notability.  Regardless, I think at this point we can wait and see if anything actually happens. --Maxamegalon2000 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?7663 is the first non-gaming publication to mention the Show Cause order although it is in a columns about various things in the video game world. SirFozzie 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's OK that it's a video game column, but it's a college paper that I know doesn't do a good job with fact checking. I read an article of theirs about the newest Weird Al album, and I was this close to writing a complaint to them about the startling inaccuracies it contained.  Again, at this point we can probably wait for something notable to actually happen first. --Maxamegalon2000 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Max, we could be waiting for a long time for something notable to happen AND for it to be reported in an unbiased manner on a mainstream news site (as most of the stories on Thompson make him out to be a champion to parents); that's part of my argument why we need to open up our horizons in terms of the sources we select, be they from gaming sites or otherwise. Just because there's inaccuracies in one article on that site, does not mean that you need to strike down every article as unreliable.  Sometimes I think Max is secretly a Thompson fan... --PeanutCheeseBar 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By "open up our horizons" you mean lower our standards. No thank you. There are more than just inaccuracies in one article, there are inaccuracies in the very article in question. Take, for example, the following sentence: "In the event that Thompson should be held in contempt of court, a substantial fine and imprisonment of several months would be levied upon Thompson." That sentence is wrong, and the error symptomatic of the lack of understanding with which the article was written. The author clearly doesn't know the consequences in advance, even if Thompson did get found in contempt, and in most places jail time would be out of the question for this situation. It's entirely speculative, both about the basis for the motion and the potential consequences, just like the other sources (a few of those did a little better at signalling that they were speculating - "it appears" or "this is all we know"). These problems are exactly why we insist on reputable mainstream sources. --Michael Snow 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because we were hamstrung by the decision on WP:RS to exclude 95% of the sources from our source. Anything that accurately portrayed it we couldn't use because "it was on a gaming website". For example. GameSpot, no one-man blog, had everything right, INCLUDING CONFIRMATION FROM THOMPSON HIMSELF that such a request had been filed, and we couldn't use it. SirFozzie 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * GameSpot had everything right? Don't make me laugh. Their story doesn't even manage to be consistent with itself. Blank Rome is "asking that Thompson be held in contempt of court for his comments to Judge Friedman" vs. "no contempt charges have yet been leveled at Thompson." All of the reports I've seen so far on gaming-related websites are largely speculative and frequently contradictory (about virtually every aspect of the situation: whether he's in contempt, what the basis would be for finding contempt, and what the penalties could be). It's a perfect illustration of why, as a general matter, those sources should be avoided. --Michael Snow 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's exactly right, you mean. That's because Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a PROPOSED ORDER for the judge for Thompson to Show Cause on why he should not be held in contempt. That was why there was a hearing on the Proposed Order yesterday, where the judge in the case recused himself from the case due to the fact that the judge himself was filing a complaint with the Florida Bar. So YES, Blank Rome/Take Two was asking that Thompson be held in contempt of court, but no finding of contempt of court had been entered. SirFozzie 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They didn't say entered, they said leveled. --Michael Snow 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because if the Judge denied the proposed order, they never existed. It was a hypothetical. SirFozzie 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Michael, given your self-admitted lack of experience in journalism, I doubt that you're in a much better position to make commentary on the legal consequences of Thompson's actions than GameSpot or any other site. Your insistence on using only mainstream sources not only hamstrings Wikipedia in terms of resources, but also in terms of credibility and respectability; after all, mainstream news sources rely on third-party or lesser news sources for some of their information, and with proper research, they typically USE them. Even blogs by virtual "nobodies" are used as sources, by your so-called mainstream media. As I have said in the past, information from gaming sites is allowable in the event that they link to their sources or proof of the story (and given how much gamers just HATE Thompson, many welcome the chance to find legitimate proof of his treachery). After all, the source of information, regardless of whether or not you find it via Google or link to it via a gaming site, still exists; finding it without the aid of a gaming site is simply cutting out the middleman. Add to that the fact that Thompson himself confirms some of this information (as SirFozzie so astutely pointed out), and that just gives further reasoning that gaming sites can be used. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your points are valid for the most part but beating up Michael isn't the way to go as your criticisms apply to Wikipedia in general and not just this article. It's a known limitation of Wikipedia's policies.  They tend to work rather well for most subjects but for a minority, including current events not reported by the mainstream press or academic publications, they do not work well.  --ElKevbo 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What sources of the information are you talking about, then, PeanutCheeseBar? I haven't seen any site, gaming or otherwise, link to, say, the actual motion or proposed order, or any court ruling. If we had those, we might be able to use them. Instead they mostly link to each other, in typical echo chamber fashion.
 * It would appear that you've glanced at my user page, in an attempt to convert this into an argument about people rather than sources (a tactic you've already adopted before). Perhaps you should read it more carefully, in order to get a hint of why I might be in a position to "make commentary on the legal consequences of Thompson's actions".
 * As for the issues of journalistic practice, I may not have that much experience with it, but I do have some understanding of how it works. Reputable news reporters may sometimes learn about things from inferior sources, but the point of the process you describe is that they check their facts, so that they're not relying on those sources, they know the information for themselves. Your argument boils down to saying they get some of their facts right, so we should use whatever they say, without worrying about whether it's right or wrong. --Michael Snow 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo, my criticisms of Wikipedia go beyond this article, though that is not the issue at hand; this article is. That aside, I am glad you understand my points.  Unfortunately, Michael does not understand my points; from what he is posting, he apparently has not read the most recent archive with subject matter concerning reliable sources.  In addition, he has also not read and fully comprehended my last post; if he had, he would have realized that I stated that mainstream media may use information after having done research on the information, or found some kind of proof.  After all, when information is passed down the line by multiple people, facts are bound to be changed or misrepresented, justifying the need to do further research; nowhere did I state that news should be constructed in a piecemeal fashion, as you've attempted to twist my argument into sounding.   Furthermore, no matter what kind of "lawyer training" you have, I am fairly certain it is not all-encompassing, and unless you do the subsequent research based on the case, laws of the state, and so on, it does not necessarily make you a reliable or qualified person to speak on matters of litigation (as much as I'm sure he'd like to make himself out to be).
 * Beyond that, the mainsteam media is also subject to gross bias, and people aren't entirely ignorant of that fact; this is the reason why CNN is construed to have a Liberal bias, and FoxNews a Conservative bias. As I was attempting to iterate in a previous statement, the mainstream media is also guilty of not checking all its facts (or even worse, being ignorant of factual inconsistencies) before releasing news to the people.  This is partially the reason why Thompson has made himself out to be a hero, because the media won't report on the extreme statements and legal threats he's made, and people don't know any better because they don't do any additional research.  The worst part of it all is that he places the blame on people who play games, people who may them, and people who sell them, but NOT the parents who buy them.  Why?  Parents don't want to take responsibility for the actions their children take. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've read the archives alright. I'll admit to not understanding your point, seeing as how it seems to be an argument that the sources currently being offered are reliable. As I've already pointed to instances of contradictory statements and flawed understanding about the legal procedure, I don't know how this makes any sense. I also don't see the point of rambling about generalized bias in the mainstream media - if you've got any reason to think any source currently in use is inaccurate or biased about Jack Thompson, by all means explain why and we'll consider removing it. --Michael Snow 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not what my argument is about at all; I've already broken it down into much simpler terms both in this discussion and in the archive. If you cannot understand it at this point, then there is little more I can do; I would have hoped that your "lawyer training" would have enabled you to understand my argument a little bit better, regardless of how simple I tried to make it.  That aside, my "rambling" must be entirely lost on you, and that's all the more reason why you're not the best person to pass judgment, especially when some of the other people here understand my point just fine. --PeanutCheeseBar 11:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to Florida's case system online?
We can sidestep the WP:RS discussion if we confirm that Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a proposed Show Cause order to the judge.. after all, if we just report that Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a Show Cause order (as I put in, with no POV Leanings earlier in the article), and the judge deferred, as he had recused himself from the case due to partiality (due to the Florida Bar complaint), that should satisfy both WP:RS AND WP:NPOV, Correct? SirFozzie 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete his article altogether
I hate this guy. I don't understand why he can't just leave us gamers alone and go mind his own business. I even bought the toilet paper with his name printed on it on the internet! If he dosen't like the video game industry, that's his own problem, but he shouldn't ruin millions of other gamers time by starting these stupid petitions and a whole bunch of other legal crap just because he dosen't like the game. He is not worthy of gracing Wikipedia with his poisonous presence.
 * Unfortunately, as much as I wish the world could ignore him (I call him Whacko Jacko on a regular basis), he does definitely fall under WP:N, and Wikipedia is NOT only for the good folks in the world, and deserves an article. SirFozzie 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We're certainly not going to delete the article on the Holocaust, so why would we delete an article on an ineffectual notable lawyer?--Vercalos 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no chance that this would get enough support on an AFD for a deletion. --65.95.16.170 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If anything, wikipedia has an obligation to document his gradual descent into madness and eventual downfall as he is disgraced, disbarred and dissapears in oblivion. VTNC 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with VTNC; for the sake of history and for the sake of taking a stand against Thompson's incessant bullying, we need to document anything that happens with Thompson. --PeanutCheeseBar 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Our personal reservations aside, we must utilize Wikipedia as the information tool that it is and help others learn about his activities. People can't stop or help discredit him without knowledge of his infamy. I am one of the people who has benefited from this article, and there are surely many others out there. Please keep up the good work. AgencySEA 10:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't feed the trolls. --ElKevbo 12:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the guy is actually a troll. He's not being particularly offensive or annoying(Unless you happen to be Jack Thompson).--Vercalos 18:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the guy is a troll either; however, if he really wanted the article to be deleted, he will need better justification than what he has posted. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that he is a poisonous scumbag who's touch with reality is somewhat questionable, but he is (unfortunely) worth of documenting; just wish wiki could have an 'official' opinion. - Doug 01:24 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Section summaries?
It's rather hard to read through the litigation section, could we break it down into cases with sub-headers: James v. Meow Media (Paducah), Lynch, Tennessee, Devin Moore, Best Buy "sting", Bully lawsuits, and Cody Posey? Or even move the case files to new wiki entries, such as with James v. Meow Media? Jabrwock 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With the size of the article, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but how many articles do we want? I know of one with his involvement in the Jacob Robida situation. SirFozzie 20:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is in my opinion too big. I think all the video game stuff should be placed in a seperate article, and a summary included here instead. Andersa 08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not yet in contempt, but complaint filed
I know I know, not reliable. But it's a heads up. Judge Friedman reclused himself from ruling whether JT was in contempt, apparently due to the fact that he had filed his own Florida Bar complaint against JT. JT grabbed by 4 police officers when he refuses to stop holding up a large posterboard in court. Destructoid will have the videotape of the event posted later. Presumably Take Two will ask the next judge to continue with the contempt ruling. Jabrwock 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the video: http://www.destructoid.com/jack-thompson. It also seems that Jack Thompson is a Mortal Kombat: Armageddon fighter as well. Boy, he sure seems to get around these days. :P (Oh, and apparently Jack is also demanding that Midway cease and desist because of this.) MarphyBlack 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There should be a section about his actions in the case Friedman is presiding over. It should also list his actions as outlined by the court reporter and witnesses. - 59.167.30.29 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

JT accuses Bully of "gay sex"
Letter he sent to retailers I hope some major media prints this. It's rediculous. He tries to argue that a homosexual kissing falls under various statutes in Florida, all of which deal with pornography, and so he can legally ban Bully from being sold to minors. Jabrwock 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reckon it's worth adding to the hilarious Bully section of the article? Sockatume 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * God.. If he's able to pull that off, some uncle's going to get sued for statutory rape for kissing his nephew on the cheek.--Vercalos 03:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait Gay sex between 15 year olds - dosent that mean he's accusing bully of containing child pornography?
 * If he does that, he'll lose what little credibility he has left.--Vercalos 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He has credibility???64.12.116.73 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. --Averross 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there is no gay sex. Just kissing. There's also kissing of girls. Gasp, shock, awe. Isn't it odd how he only finds the male stuff bad? 66.222.181.28 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all that odd. Heterosexuality is more socially acceptable than homosexuality, personal opinions aside.--Vercalos 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated the section dealing with Litigation
And broke it down into four sections,
 * Early Litigation (vs Quake et all)
 * Thompson V Grand Theft Auto (Maybe should have its own article?)
 * Thompson V Bully (Maybe should have its own article?)
 * Miscellaneous Litigation (the Cease and Desist order to Midway, etcetera)

What do you guys think? SirFozzie 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it, it's easier to read now. That section was too long before, it wasn't clear how it broke down. Jabrwock 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The only thing I can think of changing is maybe Jack Thompson vs Rockstar/Take-Two article and linking it to cut down on this article.  I think Jack's Personal Crusade against Rockstar is note worthy enough to make a note of, but can it be done in a NPOV article?  This way we could just say in the Thompson article that Thompson has been in court against Take-Two and then point them to the appropriate article.  --Tollwutig 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So has anyone read the Rolling Stone article yet?
If so, is there anything that should be added to the article? --Maxamegalon2000 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Haven't got it yet, but will keep an eye out for it now that I know Whacko Jacko's in it ;) SirFozzie 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it quotes him as being a Zappa fan (I guess he just wants to sue the pants off anyone who would provide Zappa to children...). He also apparently still makes a living off medical malpractice suits. Jabrwock 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. So he's an ambulance chaser..--Vercalos 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article at B&N. Sad news is that there really isn't anything new except what's already been on GP and on Wikipedia. Same old 2 Live Crew story and about his lawsuits, plus a quote from Doug. The one thing that caught my eye were the last 4-5 paragraphs about his son. Someone at GP already sumed it up. But as a whole I'm not sure if there's anything worth adding to WP.KungFu-tse 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think if we're careful we can mention how he makes a living, though we obviously can't call him an "ambulance chaser" unless the article uses the phrase. I think we can add a sentence somewhere.  And maybe just mention that he has a son? --Maxamegalon2000 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be acceptable to mention that he makes his living as a medical malpractice lawyer. 139.142.43.31 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Include another subhead for activism against shock jocks?
Currently there's brief mention of his involvement with Howard Stern being taken off air in the 'Other Activities' secition. This might be slightly expanded upon (such as exact involvement, others involved, and details such as specific racist comments aired on the HS show that JT reported to the FCC), as well as mention of previous action taken against other shock jocks many years prior to that. That's some interesting background info. Efrafra 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Include more quotes/info to provide greater balance?
Please don't think I'm trying to root for JT in suggesting this. It just seems that the most interest taken in this article is by those who think he's evil/loony and thus has a lot of emotional investment. As Vercalos rightly implied, the Holocaust could invoke violent feelings in people, but the purpose of Wikipedia is supposed to be informative rather than affected by opinion, emotion, or agenda (even in "Controversy" sections).

Since this is a biographical entry, I wonder why there seem to actually be more [negative] quotes made about JT by others than specific details about the various litigations-- the latter of which would make sense to detail more in the light of how they affected courts and the connection with other cases. Not to say this is not a well-written article. While I did see a few quotes from JT himself, there isn't a lot of representation of 'the other side' of the story. Censorship makes everyone get fired up and while I'm definitely not in favor of censoring everything (and thus, the topic makes me antsy) I think that sometimes we get fired up before actually considering the details of a given litigation or the object of the complaint objectively-- perhaps we care more about blocking censorship than considering/examining the individual cases. I'm always amazed when I realize that I've made a hard judgement on something without actually knowing about it. In the same way that JT wasn't smart to denounce the [albeit WEIRD] Left Behind game without actually checking it out first hand, I wonder why I was so quick to think he should've left 2 Live Crew alone until actually stopping to actually objectively consider the lyrics my 11 year old male classmates were yelling at the girls. Just saying--there's more to the value of having this entry than for the reference of seriously annoyed gamers, although that's the most recent issue. JT may be over the top, but a more balanced entry will be of more use to the public. Efrafra 04:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if the article's unbalanced it is unbalanced FOR Thompson, not against. SirFozzie 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd say it generally makes him look like a fool in the subtlest way possible..  I don't think we have any sources on him doing a single decent thing(other than his video game litigation, which he obviously thinks is right).  In all honesty, I find it hard to believe that he's entirely without any redeeming qualities, so I have to wonder if he's ever helped someone without hurting others(IE charity, etc).--Vercalos 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I want to be optimistic about humanity, I have yet to see any sort of redeeming quality or act about Thompson. As for charity, he's not good at it. Feel free to find something and contradict me, though. -Ryanbomber 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, everything he has done to make himself notable enough to end up on Wikipedia has the side effect of making him sound like a raving lunatic.Adam613 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if it's true that the article may appear subtly biased, there has been a best effort to try to make the article neutral. This is similar to the John C. Turmel article - you can still detect some bias in the article, if you know what to look for.  Likewise, you can still find some "positive" information, in the same way you can find positive information in this article.  The only difference is the quantity of sourceable stuff that can be found (although these two articles are currently held to different standards).  --Sigma 7 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article makes him look like an idiot because he IS an idiot. As neutral as you can be, you shouldn't distort the facts to make something more "neutral." We're just saying what he's done, we're not giving any opinions (except on Talk, I guess,) and it's up to the reader to decide what they want to decide. It's not our fault if everybody decides he's an idiot because he does stupid things. As much as I hate pulling a Godwin, Hitler's the best example of this. He's NOT a nice person. There's no real way to make him look nice, nor is there any reason to. The facts speak for themselves - we shouldn't have to sugar coat them. -Ryanbomber 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the quotes and details from the litigations can't be printed due to their coming from unverifiable sources, but their inclusion would actually make this entry seem MORE biased, because they illustrate even MORE how much a tool JT can be. From temper tantrum emails, to nearly getting himself arrested in court for acting like a 4-year old, to threatening everyone under the sun who says anything bad about him. Believe me, the contents of this article are the "nice" side of JT... Jabrwock 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Ryanbomber; you really can't emphasize positive qualities if there are none known or none to be had. It's for reasons like Ryanbomber's and Jabs that I think the courtroom video belongs here, because it is an unbiased look at his true nature. 71.58.194.230 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed too, and i see that somone mentiond the halocaust earlier too, i beleve that hitler is portrayed as a bad guy by what he did and i dont see anybody trying to sugar coat his actions, JT may not be as bad but he should still be shown as the person he makes himself out to be (an asshat). because i see very few redeeming qualitys on either of these men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.38.36.49 (talk • contribs).

Image
Why was Jack's photo removed? Even if it was a copyrighted image, given that it was being used to illustrate, y'know, what he looks like, and for no other reason, wouldn't that fair CLEARLY under fair use? Fieari 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently the fair use criteria prohibits non free images "just to show what a person looks like", because, you know, someone doesn't want people to be seen. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. Who knows WHY you can't have photos of living people to show what they look like... Granted, I just skimmed the article, so if there's some way to get a photo of him up, it'd help until he whined enough to get it taken back down. -Ryanbomber 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

GTA advertising a "criminal conspiracy"?
T, under pressure from cops, eyes way to kill vile ad Boston Herald, Nov 21, 2006

Jack Thompson, a Florida-based lawyer who battles violent video games across the country, said the MBTA is prohibited from promoting violent and sexually exploitative material. “It is utter nonsense for the MBTA to suggest the First Amendment somehow prohibits it from not participating in a criminal conspiracy,” Thompson wrote to Grabauskas yesterday. “What’s next? Bus ads for crack cocaine?” Jabrwock 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pbth. If this guy really believed that he would have been on the movie front from the minute "Pulp Fiction" was released. 203.131.167.26 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! JT's a genius! I'm calling the bus company as soon as I get home from school! --Averross 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Forget Uncyclopedia, this stuff is hilarious.  129.21.109.90 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mario Blocks
I'm not entirely sure this could be used a source, so I'm not adding it myself. The April 7 entry mentions Jack Thompson stating his opinion on the lawsuit involving five girls who hung mario blocks around town. In my opinion, somebody more knowing should add this particular incident to the article. 69.130.136.214 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say we probably can't cite a personal website that's video game-related for this article for two reasons: It's a personal site, and the site is video game-related. --Maxamegalon2000 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Quanz isn't a personal website, it's the home of Dinosaur Comics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I only meant that as a primary source, the site is not usable as a source here.  If it were notable enough to be in the article, it would have been covered by secondary sources. --Maxamegalon2000 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, what dumbasses. At least it gives me a new level to make for my Jack Thompson video game.--Averross 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Other public commentary
I was just reading through the archive and noticed that some of JBT's more... colorful remarks regarding the Muslim religion had found a decent source (the Sun Sentinel), but were not included in the main article. Now I'll admit to being already pretty biased against Thompson, so please tell me if you think this shouldn't be included, but I thought it might do well in the "Other public commentary" section. Something like, "In an interview on the XXth of XXX, Thompson said the following-". Thoughts? --64.218.89.103 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If sourced properly (and not just shoehorned into the article), I have no problem with it. SirFozzie 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in question is "Puritanical Intolerance is Scarier Than Stern Himself" by Michael Mayo, in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in April 2004. Thompson is quoted as saying:
 * "The Bible doesn't promote killing innocent people. Grand Theft Auto does. Islam does. ... Islam promotes the killing of innocent people.  The Quran requires the infidel, whether Jew or Christian, to be killed. ... That's a core essence of the religion. ... Muhammad was a pirate who killed infidels and who advocated the killing of infidels. Not a nice guy. Osama bin Laden is in keeping with his fine tradition."
 * I think when we talked about this in the last archive, we agreed that it was an acceptable source, even though the article is a commentary, but we never decided where it would go. In the original article, it came up in a discussion about GTA, but the Islam stuff doesn't seem to fit there.  Thoughts?  I've just added it as a source for another quote I added to the article.  --Maxamegalon2000 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, I was thinking it might go well in the "Other public commentary" section. Don't know if that part was around during the previous discussion, but since its here now, I think it would fit there. --64.218.89.101 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe add a section "Thompson quotes on Islam" in "Other Public commentary"? SirFozzie 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since noone has said this was a bad idea, and we have a good source on it, I'd ask someone to put it in. I'd do it myself, but I'm both a) at work, and b) lacking a registered username (used to have one, forgot what it was).  --64.218.89.102 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can provide me a link to the article, I'll add it in the morning :) SirFozzie 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to an online copy, but you probably should list the citation as from the Sun-Sentinel, using the information I listed above. I would do it myself if I could figure out where to put it. --Maxamegalon2000 06:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah I see it in the article now.. one minute.. SirFozzie 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (bringing it back in).. Thanks for the edit, Maxmagalon2000, It's much better your way SirFozzie 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ABC News Nightline: "The Virtue Vigilante"
Anyone catch Nightline last night? The text article as well as the video is up.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2722827&page=1

KungFu-tse 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw it, but i don't see how well it would relate to the article (almost everything in the video is already in here, i could be wrong). Still, it does provide us with more evidence of his inability to accept anything that hurts him "Studies have shown a decrease in crimes amongst teens", Jack's blatant reply: "That's not true". Prehaps it could be added somewhere into the article about his views on subjects? Inferny 05:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... (Thompson vs GTA 4)
Made slashdot and a lot of gaming sites, that Thompson sent a [| Letter to Bill Gates] about Grand Theft Auto 4 (which apparently won't even be out until October 07), trying to get Microsoft to either MAKE Rockstar pull the title, or do.. something (I refuse to try to think like him, it'd make my head explode).. and requests that Microsoft's lawyers get in touch with him to help prevent GTA IV being sold to minors. Trying to find something about it from something that will pass the WP:RS bar that's been set for this article. That's probably why the article has been hit several times the last couple days, as the kids are riled up. SirFozzie 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What a waste of time not olny has he made threats like this to bill gates before and never followed hrough on them but also I read somewhere that Microsoft paid a HUGE sum of money to get GTA 4 released on the 360 at the same time as the PS3. 05:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see Thompson try and sue Microsoft; probably end up being counter sued for damages to Bills reputation... but I fear it'll never happened, and that loud-mouth fool will keep misleading, threatening, and gaining publicity for his "good works", i.e. being a moody bugger, unwilling to accept the facts, and braking his word. Sigh. - Doug 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ready for FAC again?
Glancing over, the article looks good, and the things that made it fail last time don't seem to be an issue that we need to worry about now. It needs a more thorough lead and could benefit from a picture, but otherwise it seems to be in good shape. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think it might be time to nominate it again. --Maxamegalon2000 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My only beef with it would be that it's pretty much perma-protected because of the constant vandals. -Ryanbomber 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok
Why nobody added notice about a satyrical joke-game dedicated to mr. Thompson called "I'm ok"?

It should be added.

http://www.imokgame.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.207.129 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

It has been noted on the article A Modest Video Game Proposal which there is a link to in this article. -Ryanbomber 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also noted on I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator, which was also recently prodded (but declined).   --Sigma 7 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Crackdown
Could someone find a source for this: "Jack Thompson mistakenly said Microsoft was selling crack, when he heard about the Xbox 360 video game Crackdown, because he did not know it was a game. Ironically, Crackdown was designed by David Jones, who also designed the original Grand Theft Auto." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan78 (talk • contribs)
 * Hmmm, are you sure it's sure? It sounds fake to me. --Averross 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thompson has made some dubious accusations in the past before but this sounds too redlicious to be true. --70.48.175.99 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

sweet Christ, does Jack EVER give up? Jack, if you are reading this, RESEARCH the games that you try to ban before you ban them. Microsoft doesnt need to sell crack, bill gates wipes his butt with $100.00 bills anyways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.200.98.184 (talk • contribs).

Clarification about Sims 2
Could someone please confirm that the following statement:

Nevertheless, a command that could be entered into the in-game console in order to disable the blur effect was removed from the game in an expansion. No official reason was given for the change.

is in fact true. My sister (who owns the first three expansions) claims the command still exists (although was apparently changed to accept a parameter as the size of the blur effect (though by setting the size to zero the effect can be achieved)). 24.18.253.28 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, they're still equipped like Ken dolls. Never stopped Jack, though, did it?--Viridis 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It does matter. It gives the impression that EA would cave in to baseless claims from Jack. 164.116.126.143 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know
I referenced this article in one of my rants: The Truth about Jack Thompson. If this line is changed at any time (other than vandalism), can someone email me (e-mail address removed) to let me know so I can make the necessary adjustments to my rant? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VoodooKobra (talk • contribs)
 * I doubt it. It's also not good practice to post your e-mail address, lest it be spammed.  If you want you can assign the address to your profile under "my preferences".  Feel free to add the article to your watchlist, though, so you can see any changes made. --Maxamegalon2000 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah, good link. - Doug 21:42, 5 Feb 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really possible. You shouldn't ever count on any WP article being "fixed".  The content of a WP article may change at any moment, its veracity being more of an average over time than a single snapshot.  At any given moment it is loaded, this article might be nothing more than a misspelled sentence written by a vandal encouraging Mr. Thompson to perform an anatomically impossible act upon himself.  That's the drawback of WP's open editing system.  I don't recommend you rely on any specific verbiage found here:  the overall meaning may remain fairly consistent over time, but precise phrasing will frequently be altered.  Kasreyn 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, looks like I won't get to be lazy :P Kobra 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

GamePolitics
Is there any legitimate reason why GamePolitics is not considered a "valid source"? Dlong 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it might a valid source. Gamepolitics is notable enough to get it's own article and it's article says that it's a member of the Entertainment Consumers Association so I think it should be considered a valid source.--71.170.41.7 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that bias was cited as a reason in the past. I trust Gamepolitics, but naturally they would be slanted pro-videogame. (just playing devil's advocate for a minute).--Viridis 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I heartily recommend that participants in this discussion begin by reading the archives of this talk page first. After the intervention by WP:OFFICE, only mainstream and highly reputable sources have been used in this article. This has significantly increased the quality of the article, as well as kept the most minor incidents from being included and making the article too long and unwieldy. As for GamePolitics.com, a site I personally visit every day and generally trust, the site maintains a pro-gaming bias that would threaten the neutrality of this article. After all, the site is owned by the Entertainment Consumers Association, and Dennis McCauley did file a complaint against Thompson with the Florida Bar.

To argue for the inclusion of GamePolitics.com as a source, one would need to argue that it does not contain bias, and that the information used is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, especially considering the current quality of sourcing. Of course, I am not the final arbitor, nor do I have any special authority. User:Michael Snow was appointed by WikiMedia's legal council to maintain the quality of this article, and I simply try to maintain its quality to his standards. Feel free to invite him to participate in this discussion here if you wish. --Maxamegalon2000 03:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased source.  Bias is also a subjective matter; how will anyone ever prove gamepolitic's "unbiased" nature to your satisfaction?  The answer is, no one ever will.  It's nonsense to approach it from that angle.
 * What we should do, is to say something like "Gamepolitics - a gamer advocacy site - reports that..." etc. Thus we can use whatever facts Gamepolitics has to offer, while still giving our readers warning of any potential bias Gamepolitics may have.  It's not our job to handhold or nanny or censor - just to provide readers with the tools they need to research.  With a parenthetical note of that nature, the readers could decide for themselves whether they want to trust what Gamepolitics has to say.  Kasreyn 05:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Maxamegalon2000, you shoot down anything from ANY gaming-related website due to either "bias" or "lack of notability", and it only serves to degrade the quality of the article. Material critical of Thompson has been posted here and on several other websites (be it by Penny Arcade, VGCats, GamePolitics, etc.) and Thompson has threatened each of those entities if they did not take down the material. The end result is that they did not cave in to Jack's baseless and empty threats, and Wikipedia has, resulting in an article that is inherently biased towards Thompson, and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. Furthermore, it only encourages people like Thompson to think that they can continue to "rattle their sabers" and bully entities like Wikipedia just because someone gave in at least once. Continuing to deny sites like GamePolitics will only help to further Thompson's pro-censorship agenda, and harm Wikipedia. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are misusing bias as a complaint here. Bias is a valid complaint when you're talking about someone's opinion being good, but does not effect whether a fact a publication reports is true or not. If Gamepolitics.com lies that's another matter and does invalidate them as a factual source, but that's not a bias issue. Derekloffin 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, Derek, you stole what I was going to say. Gamepolitics is fine as long as we source them for JUST facts. Biased or not, facts can't really be changed. NPOV means nothing when something is just plain bad. -Ryanbomber 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The idea that Gamepolitics isn't a reliable source doesn't make sense. JT has become heavily intertwined with the exact subject that Gamepolitics covers. Who could possibly have better qualifications to report news on the Thompson's dealings in the video game industry than a site dedicated to reporting news on the video game industry? - Charagon